Think carefully about your answer ...

Of course it is, as long as your objectives are goading somebody into a fight.

Sometimes

Depending on what your objective is, of course.

As long as are talking about "a means", as in one of tool in a larger toolbox, of course. Plenty of examples in history.

/thread

Trick question. Fear is a used like a 'political tool' in more ways than terrorism. It's effectiveness may correlate to how knowledgable and aware the target population is about it.

Of course. This isn't an interesting question.

The threat of death is always good motivation, is this a serious question?British colonists (Americans) used it quite successfully to win their civil war. Btw, define terrorism to get a proper response.

Kind of a weird question to question in an era when politicians have used terrorism to justify war for resources.

Exploiting fear is the goal of warfare and doing it overwhelmingly is a path to victory. How is that a good idea in politics if the social effects of fear are mistrust, suspicion, paranoia, and even violence. Authoritarians uses fear to justify infringement upon individuality and property. It's their favorite tool.

Terrorism as a political method is the highest level of fearmongering short of actual war. Terrorism should not be considered a valid political method even if history provides exceptions to the rule.

Over a decade into a 'war on terror'. This is the exact kind of question that should come up regularly in the interest of the fewest people being tricked into being afraid as possible.

I think it can backfire if the great majority of the group that the terrorists come from are in a relatively small geographic area. If the citizens of the powerful western countries get frightened enough for their personal safety, their aversion to killing innocents will leave them and the terrorist groups are toast. This didn't happen when the USA was fighting Vietnam and Iraq because they weren't killing many westerners in their home countries. It didn't happen too much after 911 because the group we were after was so small and we didn't think there was too much danger of a repeat.

But what about Japan? How many innocents was the US willing to kill (or inter) there? What about the innocent Native Americans and blacks the US was willing to kill or enslave because not doing it would have been a hardship to many men on the street.

So if there is a group of 30,000 or so who are making all sort of threats to kill mega people in their own home countries and especially if they carry out those threats the superpowers won't care if that group tries to survive by blending in with the innocent population. At some point they will make the decision to kill 200,000 to get to 30,000.

Can you name some of these examples of politicians using terrorism on us?

When did the American colonists use terrorism against the British?

I heard about an isolated incident involving tea...

That's not terrorism tho

And even if it was, terrorism didn't win the U.S. its independence, warfare did.

oh come on. the tea party was clearly a terrorist attack. whats wrong with you?

It's not all that clear. One could argue it was a protest meant to show displeasure with an action rather than an attack aimed at causing fear or intimidation.

It's not like they were strapping on bombs and killing innocent civilians.

I was hoping (and I'm not disappointed) that some of you would pick up on our own revolution when "traitors" - such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. - were condemned as "terrorists" by King George of England. Even as he was being led to the gallows to be hung, Nathan Hale uttered the famous words: "My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country." It was these "terrorists" who founded our country.

In more modern times, the image of Menachem Begin, a future Prime Minister of Israel, was circulated on wanted posters (by the British) after he was implicated as a terrorist following the bombing of a hotel in Palestine.

All I intended with my question was to point out the old truism: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also, terrorism does work - especially in cases where an oppressed minority feels (or believes) that they have no other recourse. The rallying cry in our own revolution was "No taxation without representation!" and our forefathers were willing to fight and die for that proposition. A more recent example is the interaction between catholics in Northern Ireland and protestants in Great Britain. For (literally) decades, British leaders were emphatic in insisting that they would not negotiate with terrorists. Over time the resentment, mistrust (and violence) gradually subsided. A few years ago, in a carefully orchestrated event seen around the world, Queen Elizabeth extended her hand to Gerry Adams. No words were spoken, but it was as if the Queen (and Adams) were both acknowledging: "There's been enough bloodshed. Let's try to work our differences out like civilized people." Some might conclude from this that terrorism works. Others might conclude that the British just got tired of it.

If one group (right or wrong for whatever reason) believes they are being denied political representation, (and they are in fact being denied political representation), they inevitably resort to terrorism. Their oppressors scream to high heaven insisting they will not negotiate, but eventually they get tired of losing blood and treasure. They negotiate. In that respect, terrorism works.

Shooting from behind a tree instead of standing in the middle of an open field wearing a brightly colored coat.

in the context most people think about, no, because it does nothing to destabilize the target oppressive bureaucracy

I'm not so sure about this. I think the U.S. was more stable pre 911, and to the extent Bin Laden's strategy targeted secularist Arab regimes, 911 was clearly wildly successful.

Noticed that ISIL released 47 hostages today. Evidently they read twoplustwo.

They've been releasing hostages the whole time to countries that pay ransom. It's not new.